Jump to content

2023 MLB (non-Tigers) catch all thread


Tigeraholic1

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Duane Kuiper.........Wow, just wow.   I mean, really?   I don't know that THAT word just slips out without the sayer using it on a regular basis.  

yeah, I don't know how a broadcaster makes that mistake.  He is Duane Kuiper's brother and I think he's a professional bradcaster as opposed to an ex-jock.  He did say it while discussing his trip to the Negro Leagues musuem, so I don't think he was being deliberately disrespectful.  He apologized for it rather than acting like an ignorant person complaining that "Blacks get to use that word, so why not us?".    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

yeah, I don't know how a broadcaster makes that mistake.  He is Duane Kuiper's brother and I think he's a professional bradcaster as opposed to an ex-jock.  He did say it while discussing his trip to the Negro Leagues musuem, so I don't think he was being deliberately disrespectful.  He apologized for it rather than acting like an ignorant person complaining that "Blacks get to use that word, so why not us?".    

Oh, sorry, Glen.............Sorry Duane.     I don't think he was saying anything intentionally, but that word doesn't slip out unless you use it commonly, does it?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing I know about Glen Kuiper is that I had way too many of his dad’s baseball cards as a kid.  He seemed to pop up in every pack back in his Indians days.  

As for this debacle, I can sort of see how the slip happened.  He was saying the world negro and then wanted to transition into Arthur from Arthur Bryant’s BBQ and he got caught up and it merged together into what sounded like the n word.   I can see how this could happen even to someone that never says the word.

Edited by Hongbit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

The only thing I know about Glen Kuiper is that I had way too many of his dad’s baseball cards as a kid.  He seemed to pop up in every pack back in his Indians days.  

As for this debacle, I can sort of see how the slip happened.  He was saying the world negro and then wanted to transition into Arthur from Arthur Bryant’s BBQ and he got caught up and it merged together into what sounded like the n word.   

That sounds plausible.  It seems odd to me that someone who took the time to visit the Negro Leagues museum and to promote it would be someone who use the N word regularly.  Maybe, he comes from a backwards culture though.  Way back around 1970, when kids used to get into fights, others would yell "fight fight ****** and a white".  I never said it and I knew it was wrong, but it wasn't considered shocking to use the word as a joke at the time.  Maybe there are still cultures like that 50 years later.   Based on what I've heard over the last several years, overt racism is more common place than I realized.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob Kendrick hosts a weekly podcast called Black Diamonds centered around the Negro Leagues, players and nonplayers, and baseball in general.  He’s spent a good deal of time with Buck O’Neil during the twilight of his life.  I think he’s publicly responded pretty well to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the word “negro” is too close for comfort to what is now considered to be the most profane word in America, maybe they should consider rechristening the whole thing from its current name to the Black Baseball Leagues, or something along those lines, regardless of what it was called “back in the day”.

Of course, it will spur a short and strong backlash among those who have never given those leagues even a single thought, but really, **** anybody who does that. Besides, they’re already raising the predictable backlash over this already.

image.thumb.png.051e3c036dee13e09452acd162fc9640.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Since the word “negro” is too close for comfort to what is now considered to be the most profane word in America, maybe they should consider rechristening the whole thing from its current name to the Black Baseball Leagues, or something along those lines, regardless of what it was called “back in the day”.

Of course, it will spur a short and strong backlash among those who have never given those leagues even a single thought, but really, **** anybody who does that. Besides, they’re already raising the predictable backlash over this already.

image.thumb.png.051e3c036dee13e09452acd162fc9640.png

That was awful. This is the first I am hearing of it and I watched the video. Yeah, he gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Since the word “negro” is too close for comfort to what is now considered to be the most profane word in America, maybe they should consider rechristening the whole thing from its current name to the Black Baseball Leagues, or something along those lines, regardless of what it was called “back in the day”.

Of course, it will spur a short and strong backlash among those who have never given those leagues even a single thought, but really, **** anybody who does that. Besides, they’re already raising the predictable backlash over this already.

image.thumb.png.051e3c036dee13e09452acd162fc9640.png

I think it depends on the audience.  There is a difference between what you say at a SABR meeting versus a TV broadcast.  You can say Negro Leagues to a SABR audience and they know what you're talking about.  On the other hand, if you are addressing a more casual baseball audience, some of them might not even know what Negro Leagues are and the word might sound offensive.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I think it depends on the audience.  There is a difference between what you say at a SABR meeting versus a TV broadcast.  You can say Negro Leagues to a SABR audience and they know what you're talking about.  On the other hand, if you are addressing a more casual baseball audience, some of them might not even know what Negro Leagues are and the word might sound offensive.  

A lot of SABR people, and even official publications, are already using the term “Black Ball” to describe those leagues, so a formal change along those lines wouldn’t be a problem for any of us. We don’t get so hung up on traditions attended to nomenclature. We’re not conservative like that.

I don’t think there’s so much brand equity in the term “Negro Leagues” that renders it impervious to such a change. The word “Negro” itself as used to describe people, like the term “colored”, is considered at least socially unacceptable, if not downright offensive. I don’t think anything would be lost if they made that change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

I found it odd that Braden didnt sell it at all, like his eyes didn't light up or give off this "oh **** look", perhaps he didn't even register what was said. 

He's probably only half listening and thinking about what he's going to say next. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, chasfh said:

A lot of SABR people, and even official publications, are already using the term “Black Ball” to describe those leagues, so a formal change along those lines wouldn’t be a problem for any of us. We don’t get so hung up on traditions attended to nomenclature. We’re not conservative like that.

I don’t think there’s so much brand equity in the term “Negro Leagues” that renders it impervious to such a change. The word “Negro” itself as used to describe people, like the term “colored”, is considered at least socially unacceptable, if not downright offensive. I don’t think anything would be lost if they made that change.

Some people consider "Black" to be offensive and use the term African American.  I struggle with all of this myself when I write about the Negro Leagues.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oblong said:

Has any research or studies been done with regard to the effects on banning of the shifts?

Baseball America shows here that it did not affect BABIP at the minor league level:

https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/banning-shifts-had-almost-no-effect-on-batted-ball-outcomes-in-the-minors/

As for the majors this year, MLB BABIP through yesterday, 1,058 team-games so far, shows a BABIP of .298. Last year, through May 17, a total of 1,060 team-games, BABIP was. 282. That's a pretty substantial difference, and runs counter to BA's finding for the minors.

Is the difference in the majors due to the banning of the shift while the minors was an anomaly? Or is the majors the anomaly and the minors the real difference? I think probably somebody would have to dive deeper than just raw BABIP to find out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...